Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Now comes the Defendant, Nathan Carman, and respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court Grant leave for the Defendant to take the depositions of three fact witnesses who possess
information relevant to the 2013 murder of John Chakalos. Specifically the Defendant requests
As has been previously raised by the Defendant, nowhere within their Complaint, [Doc. #
1], their January 2018 Second Amended Answer to Amended Counterclaim [Doc. # 36], the
1
The identifier “Neighbor X” is being used in this Motion in lieu of this witness’s real name so as to protect the
privacy of this witness. Prior to filing this Motion Counsel for the Defendant provided Counsel for the Plaintiff this
witness’s name and copies of attached Exhibits “A” and “C” without redactions, which contain identifying
information relating to this witness.
2
The identifier “Mistress Y” is being used in this Motion in lieu of this witness’s real name so as to protect the
privacy of this witness. Prior to filing this Motion Counsel for the Defendant provided Counsel for the Plaintiff this
witness’s name and copies of attached Exhibits “B” and “C” without redactions, which contain identifying
information relating to this witness.
1
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1680
30(b)(6) testimony on the issues of the Plaintiffs’ contentions or within Plaintiffs Answers to
Interrogatories, have the Berkshire Hathaway Plaintiffs set forth their claims or contentions
relating to the 2013 murder of John Chakalos. See, Def. Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
to Compel [Doc. #51-1] and supporting Affidavit [Doc. # 51-2] and supporting Exhibits “A” –
“N” [Doc. # 51-3 through #51-16]. It is extremely difficult to defend against claims, the
substance of which have not been defined. None the less, Plaintiffs have introduced two
documents into the discovery record in this case, which appear to give substance to Plaintiffs
murder claims in this case. They are 1) the search warrant affidavit marked as Carman
Deposition Exhibit 37 [Doc. # 37-4] and 2) the single page from a USCG record marked as
During the hearing in September, the Court suggested that it was likely that the
Defendant would only be allowed three additional depositions relating to the 2013 murder of
John Chakalos. Given the absence of pleadings or discovery responses identifying the substance
of Plaintiffs’ murder claims in this case, for the purpose selecting the three additional deponents
Defendant has used the factual assertions made in the above mentioned Warrant Affidavit and
USCG Record as surrogates for Plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the 2013 murder of Defendant’s
grandfather, John Chakalos. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4]; Carman Depo Ex. 38 [Doc. #
35-5].
Defendant seeks to take the deposition of “Neighbor X” because this witness has personal
knowledge of information that establishes the time in the evening in which John Chakalos was
murdered.
2
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1681
If deposed, Defendant expects that “Neighbor X” will testify consistent with this
witnesses’ statement to the Windsor Police the day after the murder that:
“On 12/20/13 at about 0200 hours, I was home and in my Moms bedroom; located in the
northeast corner of our house. I heard a loud bang coming from the direction of my
neighbor’s house located at 52 Overlook Drive. My Dog began barking at about the
same time, which I thought was unusual for the hour. At about 0300 hours, I was laying
in my Mom’s bed and heard traffic out in front of our house. I heard multiple cars driving
by. I heard one of the cars either brake or turn hard and it made a squealing noise.”
The testimony of “Neighbor X” is strong evidence supporting the conclusion that John
Chakalos was shot at approximately 2:00 am (0200 hours) on December 20, 2013. Further, the
testimony of “Neighbor X” is likely to be strong evidence that John Chakalos was not shot after
Establishing the time of the murder is significant because the Warrant Affidavit (Carman
Depo. Ex. 37) explicitly identifies a “time period of over one hour from 0257 AM to 0400 AM
on December 20, 2013” as being the time period which is “unaccounted for” and during which,
the affidavit implies/suggests, Nathan Carman could have murdered his grandfather. Warrant
Affidavit, Carman Depo. Ex. # 37, Para. 6. [Doc. # 37-4, page 4 of 11]. Surveillance video at a
Stop & Shop and at his apartment building establishes that Nathan Carman was shopping late on
3
Personal identifiers have been redacted from the Windsor P.D. witness statements attached Exhibit “A” so as to
protect the privacy of “Neighbor X”. Prior to filing this Motion counsel for the Defendant has provided counsel for
the Plaintiffs’ with an un-redacted copy of Ex. “A” which contains the name, address and other redacted
information.
4
Except for Mr. Carman, his mother and grandfather, personal identifiers have been redacted from the timeline
attached as Ex. “C” to protect the privacy of “Neighbor X” as well as other persons. Counsel for the Defendant has
provided counsel for the Plaintiffs’ with an un-redacted copy of this exhibit
3
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1682
the evening of December 19th, that immediately after leaving the Stop & Shop he returned to his
apartment in Bloomfield, where he remained until 0257 hours (2:57 am). Id. at Para. 5-6 [Doc. #
37-4]; See, also, Windsor P.S. Supplemental Report, pp. 5-6, Page 5 (Attached hereto as Exhibit
“B”) 5. Surveillance video shows Mr. Carman leaving his apartment at 0257 hours (2:57 am). Id.
Surveillance video from a gas station and cell phone records establish that Mr. Carman arrived in
Deposition testimony from “Neighbor X” is highly relevant because this testimony tends
to establish that John Chakalos was not murdered during the one hour time period (0257 – 0400)
which the Warrant Affidavit claims Mr. Carman is “unaccounted for”. [Doc. # 37-4, page 4 of
11] Simply stated, if John Chakalos was shot at 2:00 am, then Nathan Carman clearly was not
the murderer.
Defendant seeks to take the deposition of “Mistress Y” for a number of reasons. First,
testimony from “Mistress Y” is likely to establish that, when Nathan Carman left his
Grandfathers’ home on the evening of December 19th, 2013, John Chakalos, was alive & well
and had not been shot 6. Second, deposition testimony from “Mistress Y” (in conjunction with
the requested deposition testimony of Mrs. Santilli and other evidence) is likely to establish facts
from which one can reasonably conclude that, in comparison to the evidence supporting
5
Personal identifiers have been redacted from the two pages (5-6) of a Windsor P.D. report attached as Exhibit “B”
so as to protect the privacy of “Mistress Y”. All information relating to two other persons has been redacted
entirely. Counsel for the Defendant has provided counsel for the Plaintiffs’ with an un-redacted copy of this exhibit.
6
There are two additional witnesses who also have knowledge through telephone calls that John Chakalos was alive
after Nathan Carman left Chakalos’ home during the evening of December 19th, 2013. See, Windsor P.D. Victim
Timeline (attached as Ex. “C”).
4
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1683
Plaintiffs’ murder claims against Mr. Carman, the evidence that “Mistress Y” was involved 7 with
Chakalos’ murder, is far stronger. Similarly, testimony from “Mistress Y” is likely to establish
facts from which one could reasonably conclude that Mr. Chakalos’ lifestyle and activities prior
to his death made him a target of robbery and/or murder by some unknown person(s).
If deposed Defendant expects 8 “Mistress Y’s” testimony will establish the following
facts:
At the time of John Chakalos’ murder “Mistress Y” was an attractive 25 year old woman.
Windsor P.D. Supplemental Report pages 5-6 (Attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). “Mistress Y”
first met 87 year old John Chakalos during the spring of 2013 in connection with her job working
in a housing complex in New Hampshire which was controlled by Mr. Chakalos. During the late
spring and summer of 2013 John Chakalos regularly visited “Mistress Y” in New Hampshire and
periodically took her out to lunch. During these visits Mr. Chakalos would give “Mistress Y”
By August of 2013 the relationship between “Mistress Y” and John Chakalos involved
Mr. Chakalos giving “Mistress Y” cash in exchange for sexual favors. At the time of this sexual
activity in August of 2013, “Mistress Y” was living with her boyfriend in New Hampshire.
relationship between “Mistress Y” and John Chakalos continued through the fall of 2013.
During the weekend of December 13-14, 2013 (the weekend preceding the murder), John
Chakalos and “Mistress Y” spent the weekend together at the Mohegan Sun Casino where they
7
The term “involved” is being used in its broadest sense, extends to both direct and indirect involvement in the
murder, and includes innocent communication of information that was used to accomplish the murder and/or
communication of information that Mr. Chakalos a target.
8
“Mistress Y” has given several written, audio and video recorded statements to the police in connection with the
murder of John Chakalos. There are some inconsistencies between these statements. Accordingly, it remains
uncertain precisely what “Mistress Y” will testify to during her deposition.
5
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1684
shared a bed and engaged in sexual activity. John Chakalos gave “Mistress Y” at least $3,500.00
in cash this weekend. Windsor P.D. Supplemental Report pages 5-6 (Ex. “B”). While in the
hotel room at the Mohegan Sun during the weekend preceding his murder, John Chakalos took a
sex toy out of his bag and asked “Mistress Y” to use it on herself. “Mistress Y” declined to use
this sex toy telling John Chakalos that the sex toy he had brought with him was “way to big”.
Testimony from Mrs. Santilli, credit card statements and other evidence will establish
that At 1:30 pm during the afternoon of Thursday, December 19th (the last afternoon he was
alive) Mr. Chakalos visited a sex shop in Hartford named the “Luv Boutique” and purchased
If deposed, testimony from “Mistress Y” will establish that John Chakalos called
“Mistress Y” during the afternoon of December 19, 2013 (after visiting the “Luv Boutique” and
prior to going out to dinner with Nathan Carman) Mr. Chakalos called “Mistress Y” by
telephone, but was unable to connect with her. Testimony from Mr. Carmen will establish that
after having dinner with his grandfather at a local restaurant, Nathan drove his grandfather home
at around 8:30pm and left his grandfather’s home shortly thereafter. Windsor P.D. Victim
If deposed, testimony from “Mistress Y” will establish that she called John Chakalos at
his home at 8:36 pm in the evening of December 19, 2013. Testimony from “Mistress Y” will
establish that after answering this 8:36 pm call, John Chakalos told her that Nathan was just
leaving and asked “Mistress Y” to give him a minute “to say goodbye to my grandson”.
Thereafter John Chakalos and “Mistress Y” spoke on the phone for approximately 20 minutes.
Windsor P.D. Victim Timeline. (Ex. “C”). This 20 minute conversation was sexual in nature.
6
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1685
Id. During this 20 minute conversation on the evening of his murder, John Chakalos told
“Mistress Y” that he was not happy with what happened at the Mohegan Sun. Id.
At the time of this telephone conversation on the evening of December 19th, “Mistress Y”
was aware that John Chakalos always had in his possession large amounts of cash, frequently in
the form of stacks of $100 bills. At the time of this call “Mistress Y” believed John Chakalos
was worth millions. At the time of this telephone conversation on the evening of December 19th,
“Mistress Y” correctly believed that John Chakalos was home alone and that he would remain
home alone for the remainder of the evening. At the time of this telephone conversation on the
evening of December 19th, “Mistress Y” correctly believed that John Chakalos had kept his
relationship with “Mistress Y” a secret and that none of his family or friends were aware of the
If deposed, testimony from “Mistress Y” will establish that at the time of John Chakalos’
murder, “Mistress Y” had a history of drug abuse and had relationships with persons who
trafficked in illegal narcotics. The boyfriend, with whom “Mistress Y” was living when the sex
for money relationship with John Chakalos began, also had a history of drug abuse.
If deposed, testimony from Valerie Santilli will establish that her father, John Chakalos,
always kept very large amounts of cash in multiple locations throughout his home and that he
counted stacks of money for fun. Testimony from Mrs. Santilli will establish that on the
morning here father was discovered dead, the window of the back door of his home was
discovered broken.
Testimony from Mrs. Santilli will establish that shortly after her father’s death, Mrs.
Santilli became aware that John Chakalos had brought a sex toy to the casino during the
preceding weekend, and also became aware through credit card records that during the afternoon
7
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1686
immediately prior to his murder, John Chakalos visited the “Luv Boutique” in Hartford and
purchased sexual paraphernalia. Testimony from Mrs. Santilli will establish that in her capacity
as Executrix, she inventoried her father’s home shortly after his murder, during which she
specifically searched for sex toys and the sexual paraphernalia purchased by her father during the
afternoon before his murder. These sexual items were not removed from the home by the police
and despite searching everywhere she thought her father might have hidden these sexual items,
conversation with John Chakalos after Nathan Carman left his grandfather’s home, is relevant
because it negates the probative value of the assertion made within the Warrant Affidavit
(Carmen Depo. Ex. 37) that Nathan “was the last person known to see John Chakalos alive”.
[Doc. # 37-4, para. 5, page 3 of 11]. This assertion that “Nathan was the last person known to
see John Chakalos alive”, has been repeatedly restated by the Plaintiffs in their motion papers as
evidence of Mr. Carman’s guilt. It should be noted that after the phone call with “Mistress Y”,
John Chakalos also called another person (and left a voice message) and nearly an hour and one
half after Nathan left his grandfather’s home, John Chakalos had an eight minute telephone
conversation with a third witness. Windsor P.D. Victim Timeline. (“21:54 Victim spoke with A.
K. [redacted] on phone for 8 minutes”) (Ex. “C”). The fact that, John Chakalos was alive and
speaking on the phone to three different witnesses for an hour and a half after Nathan Carman
left his grandfather’s home, negates the probative value of the claim that Mr. Carman was the
Expected testimony from “Mistress Y” is also relevant because it lays the evidentiary
foundation for a half dozen alternated plausible explanation for John Chakalos’ murder, all of
8
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1687
which are better supported by the evidence and each appear to be more likely to be true than the
Plaintiffs’ theory that Nathan did it. The claim that Nathan Carman murdered his grandfather is
exceptionally weak, none the less; the fact that it is the only theory currently being presented
makes it appear much stronger than it really is. Simply put, a person is more likely to get picked
Given the expected testimony from “Mistress Y” it is plausible that the motive of the
murder was robbery and that she was directly involved either individually or through an
accomplice. “Mistress Y” had knowledge that John Chakalos was worth millions, that he was 87
years old, hard of hearing, that he always had large amounts of cash and from her conversation
with Mr. Chakalos that evening, she knew that he was going to be home all alone the entire
night. Simply stated “Mistress Y” had knowledge that John Chakalos was a very easy &
lucrative target. Further, through her relationship with drug traffickers she had access to people
who are not shy about using violence to get what they want. The fact that the sex toy and in
particular the sexual paraphernalia purchased by John Chakalos earlier that afternoon appears to
have been removed from the home at the time of the murder, tends to add weight to this theory.
Similarly, it is plausible that “Mistress Y” was indirectly involved with the murder by
way of communicating information that John Chakalos was an easy target to some other person
who committed the murder without her knowledge or participation. It is also plausible that
year old grandfathers do with their spare time. The fact of the matter is that living alone in a
house in which he kept large amounts of cash placed John Chakalos at risk. By placing
9
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1688
knowledge of this vulnerability outside a close circle of family and friends, Mr. Chakalos’
Finally, it should be noted that the fact that none of John Chakalos’ family had any
knowledge of his sexual relationship with “Mistress Y”, suggests that Mr. Chakalos may have
been involved in other activities that lead to his murder that we simply don’t know about because
Valerie Santilli is one of John Chakalos’ daughters and is the executrix of his estate.
Mrs. Santilli has intervened in this case pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Mrs. Santilli was identified
as a witnesses whom may be called by the Plaintiffs in support of their claims and defenses
Plaintiffs’ Fifth Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure which was served upon the Defendant in June
of 2018, several months after the close of fact discovery and several months after the Court
explicitly prohibited the Defendant from conducting fact discovery relating to the 2013 murder.
Defendant seeks to take the deposition of Valerie Santilli for a number of reasons. First,
as discussed in Section III above, Mrs. Santilli has knowledge of information (cash, broken
window, missing sex paraphernalia) that in conjunction with evidence from “Mistress Y” makes
murder by a non-family member the most probable explanation for John Chakalos’ death.
Second, a deposition of Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she is the source of a lot of the
information contained within the Warrant Affidavit and the USCG Record, and that many of
these statements are false, and that Mrs. Santilli knew them to be false at the time she made
them. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4]; Carman Depo Ex. 38 [Doc. # 35-5]. Third, a
10
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1689
deposition of Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that Nathan Carman was not a beneficiary of
John Chakalos’ estate, that he did not inherit a single penny from his estate and more generally,
that Nathan Carman did not have a financial incentive to murder his grandfather. Forth, a
deposition of Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she had a far stronger motive to murder John
Chakalos and in fact the evidence of her involvement with the murder is stronger than the
evidence of Nathan Carman’s involvement. It should be noted that Defendant is not suggesting
that the evidence of Mrs. Santilli’s involvement is particularly strong, it is not, but it is stronger
Testimony from Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she was the family member who
contacted the U.S. Coast Guard the evening of September 16, 2016 and provided the Coast
Guard with the information contained at the top of the one page USCG document marked as
Exhibit 38 within Mr. Carman’s deposition. Carman Depo Ex. 38 [Doc. # 35-5]. Mrs. Santilli’s
deposition will establish that her statements to the Coast Guard about “the estate being settled
this week” and “the 5 million dollar home to be left to [Carman’s mother]” are false and that
Mrs. Santilli knew these statements were false when she made them. Evidence that some of Mrs.
Santilli’s statements as contained in Exhibit 38 are false negate the probative value of this
exhibit. Further, evidence that Mrs. Santilli purposefully gave false statements to the U.S. Coast
Guard during search and rescue operations seriously calls into question the credibility of other
statements made by Mrs. Santilli to law enforcement officials and her testimony at trial.
Testimony from Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that she was also the source of the
information contained within paragraph 8 of the Warrant Affidavit including the false allegation
that Mr. Carman “held another child hostage with a knife”. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4]
11
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1690
Testimony from Mrs. Santilli is likely to establish that, at the time of the murder she was
aware of that her father possessed several WWII military rifles and was specifically aware of the
location in the house in which he kept them. Further, Mrs. Santilli is likely to testify that she told
the Windsor P.D. of her knowledge regarding the location of the WWII rifles during a video tape
recorded interview she gave within weeks of the murder. This testimony will establish that the
information within paragraph 10 of the Warrant Affidavit is not accurate and that the Windsor
P.D. knew or should have known it was not accurate. Carman Depo. Ex. 37 [Doc. # 37-4].
As noted previously the information contained within paragraphs 11 & 19 of the Warrant
Affidavit [Doc. # 37-4] claiming that John Chakalos was murdered by a .308 rifle is inconsistent
with State Police Ballistics Report filed in this case as Doc. #86-1. The Windsor Police where in
possession of the State Police Ballistics Report and knew or should have known it did not
The proposed deposition of Mrs. Santilli will establish that many months before John
Chakalos was murdered Mrs. Santilli had armed men guarding her home. Mrs. Santilli also had
armed men guarding her home immediately after her father’s murder; however their presence
had nothing to do with her fear of Nathan Carman. Immediately after the murder Mr. Carman
spent time in Mrs. Santali’s home, alone with her children, teaching them piano. This evidence
will establish that Paragraph 20 of the Warrant Affidavit [Doc. # 37-4] while not technically
Expected testimony from “Neighbor X” relating to the time of the murder, the previously
filed State Police Ballistics Report [Doc. #86-1] relating to the murder weapon/bullet and the
expected testimony of Valerie Santilli, strongly support the conclusion that most of the key
assertions within the Warrant Affidavit [Doc. # 37-4] marked in Mr. Carman’s deposition are
12
Case 1:17-cv-00038-WES-PAS Document 88 Filed 10/22/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1691
either false or intentionally misleading and that the purpose of this Warrant Affidavit was to get a
search warrant which would result in a felony charge against Mr. Carman under the recently
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Nathan Carman, and respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court Grant leave for the Defendant to take the depositions of three fact witnesses
who possession information relevant to the 2013 murder of John Chakalos. Specifically the
Defendant requests leave to take the deposition of 1) “Neighbor X”, 2) “Mistress Y”, and 3)
Valerie Chakalos.
Respectfully Submitted
I hereby certify that on the above date, I electronically filed the above pleading with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing(s) to all
counsel of record for all parties.
/s/David F. Anderson
David F. Anderson
13